Credit hour equivalencies for operating papers

Our new contract’s Addendum B (Addendum X in preliminary drafts of the contract text) calls for each academic unit to include specific criteria for credit hour equivalencies for contact hours and/or indirect teaching in its operating paper. Now is the time for Faculty in each unit to initiate the necessary operating paper changes.

The Faculty Association has created a web page with resources for Faculty as they work on credit hour equivalencies for their operating papers: . This page will be updated from time to time with additional information, templates for operating paper language, and answers to questions that arise during this process.

In addition, to help Faculty with the process of establishing credit hour equivalencies, the Faculty Association has scheduled a one-hour Workload Seminar at 12:00 noon on Wednesday, February 15 in the Illinois Room in the Student Center. Please contact me if you would like to schedule a Faculty Association presentation in your own unit on Addendum B and credit hour equivalencies.

Here are a few guidelines for how to proceed:

The Faculty in each unit initiate the operating paper changes.
In Addendum B, as in the rest of our contract, “Faculty” with a capital “F” refers to the tenured and tenure track faculty in the Faculty Association bargaining unit. Chairs of departments, Directors of schools, Associate Deans, Deans, and higher administrators are not part of the bargaining unit. Addendum B specifies that the Faculty in each unit (department, school, Library Affairs) submit the proposed operating paper amendment. Set up a meeting in your unit or form an ad hoc Faculty committee to develop a proposal. The Faculty in your unit decide (vote) on the proposal to be submitted as an operating paper amendment.

Changes to operating papers under Addendum B are limited to credit hour equivalencies for contact hours and indirect teaching.
Do not combine other measures (even other workload amendments) with your credit hour equivalency amendment. The operating paper changes under Addendum B go through a process different from other amendments. The mandate of Addendum B is to provide operating papers with “complete and specific criteria for credit hour equivalencies for contact hours and/or for indirect teaching assignments”. These are the only issues that must be considered at this time.

Changes go through the approval process according to operating paper amendment procedures AND Addendum B.
Follow the amendment procedure in your operating paper, provided it is consistent with the Faculty contract. If your operating paper and the contract contradict each other, the contract overrides the operating paper. For example, if your unit operating paper requires that amendments be first proposed and voted on by Faculty (i.e., faculty in the bargaining unit represented by the Faculty Association), then this procedure satisfies the requirement in Addendum B that the proposed amendment be submitted by the Faculty. Otherwise, an initial step is required for the Faculty to vote on the proposal before proceeding with the amendment process.

Additional guidelines for developing the credit hour equivalency criteria:

Identify contact hour or indirect teaching duties for which to define credit hour equivalencies.
Are there teaching assignments in your unit where contact hours exceed credit hours? What indirect teaching duties are performed in your unit? See Section 8.01.b.1 of the new contract ( ) for definitions and examples of direct and indirect teaching.

Consult credit hour equivalency policies and contract provisions at peer institutions when developing your proposed amendment.
Credit hour equivalencies in “collective bargaining contracts or adopted policies for Carnegie Extensive Research Universities, including but not limited to the University’s IBHE 1985 Peer List” should be used as “primary points of reference” in developing unit criteria. These reference points will also be used if negotiations over operating paper amendments become necessary. Links to several contracts and policies are available on the FA workload page (

Express equivalencies in terms of credit hours in the faculty member’s teaching assignment.
Faculty workload assignments are based on a workload equivalent of twenty-four (24) credit hours per academic year. That is, a teaching assignment of twenty-four credit hours in a year (twelve hours in a semester) represents an assignment which is totally teaching (no research or service). Credit hour equivalencies for contact hours and indirect teaching will determine how much these activities are to count in the teaching part of Faculty members’ workload assignments, as measured in credit hours.

Bring your questions to the Workload Seminar on February 15, or email them to me at

2010 – 2014 Contract Signed

The new contract for tenured and tenure track Faculty represented by the SIUC Faculty Association has been signed and executed. The final edited version is available on the FA Contract page at this site: FA Contract

Strike continues on Tuesday

The strike by tenured and tenure-track faculty continues today, Tuesday. Picketing resumes this morning. Bargaining also resumes this morning.

At 5:17 pm on Monday November 7, the SIUC administration’s bargaining team presented the Faculty Association’s negotiating team with a revised proposal on all remaining items at dispute. The administration’s team then informed the FA team that they were departing for the evening and wished to resume negotiations Tuesday morning. The premature departure of the administration team  ensures that the strike by faculty on the SIUC campus will continue at least one more day.

A statement concerning the status of bargaining appears in the previous post.

Where we stand: November 7, 2011

Thanks to the resolve and hard work of faculty at the picket line and in the bargaining room, and with the help of numerous supporters from our sister locals and hundreds of SIUC undergraduates, we have made considerable progress over the last few days, but major differences remain between our proposals and those of the Board of Trustees team. The administration left us no alternative to a strike in order to achieve the progress we have made so far.  With continued resolve and support we shall secure enough progress to reach a tentative agreement and end this strike.

At 5:17 pm on Monday, November 7, the BOT team presented a set of proposals that responded to FA proposals that had been sent to the BOT team at 11:30 am.  After a brief conversation, the board team informed the FA bargaining team that they were leaving for the evening and would resume negotiations at 9:30 am on Tuesday. The FA team will resume bargaining with the Board team then.  The FA team had been prepared to continue bargaining in an effort to reach an agreement Monday night.  But by breaking off negotiations on Monday night, the board team ensured that a strike would continue for at least one more day.  In subsequent comments in an email and to the press the Chancellor indicated that her team was ready to meet again this evening, but that statement contradicts what the Board bargaining team said in direct communication with the FA bargaining team.

At 8:00 pm the FA’s Departmental Representatives Council received a detailed report from the bargaining team on the course of negotiations and the current positions of the board and FA.  At the end of that meeting the DRC voted unanimously to support their bargaining team, calling for them to return to the bargaining table and seek an equitable resolution of the remaining issues that divide the two sides.  The major items where the BOT and FA remain divided are the following:

Furloughs. The BOT proposal lacks clear standards and a clear process for determining when the financial situation justifies furloughs, and provides for no accountability that would allow a grievance or other appeal in the event the FA believes those standards have not been met.  The BOT proposal offers toothless midterm bargaining which could not reverse an unjustified imposition of furloughs. The BOT proposal would thus undermine our collective bargaining rights by failing to guarantee that salaries are determined by mutual agreement and cannot be arbitrarily and unilaterally reduced by the Board.  Because the BOT proposal lacks transparency and accountability, it provides no safeguard against the risk that savings from furloughs would be used not to safeguard our academic mission, but instead to fund other administrative priorities.  Finally, the Board’s proposal would limit our recourse to the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board to settle our dispute over the legality of the BOT’s imposition of four furlough days in FY 2011. The FA has proposed multiple options for meeting our interest in transparency and accountability on this issue.

Back to work agreement. The Board’s punitive back to work proposal is an insult to the faculty exercising their legal right to strike under Illinois law. Particularly insulting are the Board’s broad implications that faculty have been engaging in threats and misconduct during the course of the strike.  Inflammatory language will only inflame tensions on campus. The FA believes that an important goal for a back to work agreement is to build a better relationship between the faculty and the administration.

Fair share.  The administration continues to refuse to offer us fair share provisions similar to those offered to other IEA locals.

Areas of agreement. The FA team has worked creatively to secure our basic interest in transparency and accountability on Reduction in Force (layoffs) by contractualizing a definition of financial exigency and gaining the power to strike in the event we wish to challenge a BOT declaration of financial exigency, though we would have preferred the less disruptive alternatives of a binding outside panel or binding arbitration.  On overload pay, we secured full pay for all face to face overload courses, but would allow the BOT to offer 0.5-1.0 month’s for distance learning courses, in order to meet their interest in ensuring that such courses are profitable.  This last provision is explicitly limited to the current contract, and a cost study analysis done by the provost’s office will help determine whether the university can afford full pay for DL courses moving forward.  We have also reached an agreement to put off final decisions on sexual harassment and conflict of interest procedures, but with a schedule to resolve these matters.

Bargaining Continues

It is Monday morning at 6:50 a.m. and bargaining continues at the Student Center with no settlement in sight. The FA Team has committed to staying at the Student Center until a settlement is reached. Picketers with assigned locations should go to those locations. Others can join at any picket location at the perimeter of the campus.

In solidarity,

Randy Hughes

Bargaining to resume under the auspices of a federal mediator

Friday evening, November 4, SIUC Associate General Counsel Deborah Nelson, a representative of the Board Bargaining Team, sent a message to Faculty Association lead negotiator Morteza Daneshdoost indicating the Board Team’s willingness to resume bargaining under the auspices of a federal mediator. Morteza replied the same evening, agreeing to resume bargaining. The exact time of bargaining sessions depends on the availability of a mediator, but it is our hope that bargaining sessions can resume by Sunday.

Our collective action, along with the support of students, community members, and employees across campus, has brought us to this point. Despite the attempts of the administration to minimize our results and to suppress contradictory views, it is apparent that it has not been business as usual on campus.

It is our hope that bargaining will proceed quickly with a real give and take that will close the gap between the two sides and result in a mutual agreement. As far as we have come, we have farther to go to reach our goal of a fair settlement. That means we will keep building pressure – sustaining our strike, growing participation in picketing and other activity, and reaching out to supporters – until a tentative agreement is reached at the bargaining table.

The Faculty Association is holding an informational meeting for faculty at 5:00 p.m. on Sunday, November 6, at the Carbondale Civic Center. This meeting is open to all members of the bargaining unit represented by the Faculty Association.

Faculty Association Strike Day 2 Begins

The Faculty Association’s first day on strike has passed. Aside from the cold and rainy weather, it was a good first day for the picketing teams. Faculty Association picketers maintained a strong presence all day at the numerous entrances to campus. Picketers were joined by many students and members of other locals in a upbeat and spirited display of solidarity. Passersby were overwhelmingly supportive.

Many thanks to all of the individuals who were picketing on the line, running supplies to picketers and providing support at the Strike Headquarters, as well as all of those who supported the strike by not going to work. If you haven’t experienced the camaraderie of working on one of these teams, you have another chance today (Friday). Join a team at any of the picketing sites around the perimeter of campus, or show up at Strike Headquarters (west end of the old Carbondale High School, 880 West High Street just off of Oakland Avenue, one block north of Main Street).

Our goal is to negotiate a mutual agreement between the SIUC Faculty Association and the SIU Board of Trustees. Your FA Bargaining Team has been in bargaining for many months. They continued to work through the day Wednesday, up to the strike deadline, meeting with the Board Team, formulating options, and offering significant movement to meet administration interests, only to have these offers summarily rejected by the Board Team without any movement or counterproposal on the Board’s part. In striking against the SIUC Administration, we are exercising our remaining legal alternative to get the Board Team back to the bargaining table with the will and authority to reach a mutual agreement with the Faculty Association.

In solidarity,

Randy Hughes



SIUC Faculty Association On Strike

Statement to the media by FA Spokesperson David Johnson
12:01 a.m., November 3, 2011

Tonight the SIUC administration decided it wanted a strike, not a settlement. As of midnight tonight, the Faculty Association is on strike.

Today the FA team brought yet another new set of proposals to the bargaining table to help us reach an agreement and avoid a strike. The board team has now rejected all of our proposals, and offered no new proposals of their own. They have today and tonight, as so often before, shown no interest in real bargaining. They have been willing to meet but unwilling to move. SIUC has never before had a strike on campus. Tomorrow morning, because of this administration’s unwillingness to bargain, we will be on strike.

Let me briefly explain the new proposals we brought to the table today, which will help you understand the major issues still separating the two sides.

Our bargaining team brought two new options on furloughs. Both involved major concessions on our part. We offered to allow the administration to impose furloughs at its own discretion, without any need to justify these furloughs–so long as it repaid the furloughs the next year. And we offered furloughs the administration would not need to repay, but would need to justify, including, if we found their justification inadequate, to an outside arbitrator. Given a choice between concession A and concession B, the administration chose none of the above. It rejected both.

Our bargaining team brought a new proposal to the table that would allow us to deal with our differences over a new conflict of interest policy and SIUC procedures to follow in dealing with accusations of sexual harassment. We suggested that these matters, important though they are, should be postponed until midterm bargaining, so that they would not stand in the way of a new contract that would avoid a strike. The administration rejected this proposal.

Salaries. The Chancellor’s team offered us raises of 0,1,1, and 2% over the four years of the next contract. But she said that offering us such raises would require large increases in tuition for our students. We do not want to raise tuition on our students. We have therefore turned down their salary offer, and instead continued to offer, as we have for a long time now, that our salaries should increase if and only if SIUC’s overall revenues increase. If SIUC’s finances improve, our salaries should increase. If not, not.

I hope this makes it clear that our disagreement is not about salaries. So what is our disagreement about? The fundamental issues are transparency and accountability. Just as we hold our students and ourselves accountable by giving them a syllabus outlining the criteria by which we will judge them, so too we expect the administration to provide us with transparency and accountability.

Transparency and accountability are particularly crucial regarding tenure. The FA represents all tenured and tenure-track faculty at SIUC. Tenure is essential to protecting academic freedom and attracting and retaining high quality faculty at SIUC. It has come under attack here before. As long time residents of Carbondale will remember, SIUC laid off 104 tenured and tenure-track faculty in 1974. That move was illegal, and was eventually quashed in the courts–but only after SIUC suffered tremendous damage. This administration would have the Faculty Association sign off on contract language that would make such layoffs legal. This is something we cannot do.

We are willing to help SIUC out in the event of a genuine financial crisis. We are not against furloughs in all circumstances or against layoffs in all circumstances. We are prepared to support both furloughs and layoffs, but only if they are justified by a true fiscal crisis. The only way to ensure this is through a process that provides transparency and accountability, a process that all on the SIUC campus can understand and accept. The administration has been unwilling to work with us to produce such a process.

As of midnight tonight, the Faculty Association is on strike. Tomorrow morning thousands of SIUC students will be left without qualified professors in their classrooms. This is not an easy step for faculty to take. Tomorrow morning, the place we want to be in the classroom. Instead we will be on the picket line. We will be there seeking what we have been seeking for 16 long months now–a fair contract that is in the best interest not only of SIUC faculty but in the best interest of the university as a whole and, most importantly, the students we serve.


Straight facts on tenure and layoff

Dear Colleagues,As we already noted in the Strike FAQ, faculty should be prepared for administration tactics designed to divide and conquer. On October 4, we all received an email from Chancellor Cheng twisting the facts concerning tenure and layoffs and the proposals made at the bargaining table. The reduction in force article, the language regarding layoff and tenure, is indeed currently being bargained. Faculty unity has brought these issues back to the table and we must remain united in order to secure a contract that protects tenure. We must not allow administration tactics to diminish the strength we have gained in unity.Layoff and tenure are certainly some of the important issues in this round of negotiations, although not the only ones. Let’s take a look at the Chancellor’s so-called “Facts” about faculty tenure.

“Fact” 1:  Tenured faculty cannot be laid off unless the Board of Trustees declares a state of financial exigency or in the event of program elimination.  (SIU Board of Trustees 2 Policies C.1.e-i).  This Policy has been in place since 1984 with a revision adopted in 2003.

No, that is not what Board of Trustees (BOT) Policy says (look for yourself). BOT policy does not refer to “layoff” specifically, but does mention “mandatory leaves without pay” in cases of the vaguely defined “fiscal emergency.” The inadequate protections provided in BOT Policy prompted discussions over these issues in past negotiations and that is why we finally settled on no-layoff side letters for the 2002-2006 and 2006-2010 contracts. It is the contractually binding side letters that have protected faculty against layoff.

“Fact” 2:  The Administration provided a proposal to the Faculty Association bargaining team on Friday, September 30, 2011 which specifically states that tenured and tenure-track faculty may only be laid off as a result of financial exigency declared by the Board of Trustees. Further, this proposal indicates that any declaration of financial exigency will be in accordance with the Board of Trustees Policy as it existed on July 1, 2011.

While the Board team did provide a proposal on September 30, the Chancellor’s paraphrase of the Board’s proposal is inaccurate. The Board’s language does NOT state that the layoff of tenured and tenure track faculty may only occur when financial exigency is declared. Most of the problematic terms from the Board’s past proposal remain (e.g., “partial” layoffs, 30 day notices to lay off a faculty member, limited recall rights expiring after two years). The Faculty Association Bargaining Team finds the Board’s proposal unacceptable. The FA team has provided a detailed proposal that clearly restricts the layoff of faculty to periods when a state of bona fide and legitimate financial exigency exists and provides for transparency and accountability in the determination of financial exigency. As another option, the team has also renewed its offer to replace the entire article with a side letter containing a no-layoff clause as we have had in past contracts.

“Fact” 3:  The Board policy contains specific requirements that must be met prior to the Board considering a declaration of financial exigency.

BOT policy provides no criteria for determining whether a declaration of financial exigency is justified. The requirements are procedural and the definition of financial exigency is vague and circular: “A long-term fiscal emergency is the condition of financial exigency, which results when an imminent financial crisis will require long-term programmatic reductions and termination of tenured faculty.” (SIU Board of Trustees 2 Policies C.1.e.2.b.) The FA proposes that criteria for determining whether financial exigency exists be spelled out in our contract and that disputes of over such determinations be submitted to a neutral third party for resolution.

“Fact” 4:  Current Board policy regarding financial exigency guarantees that faculty, through their official constituency body will be continuously involved in the DECISION of whether to recommend to the BOT that a declaration of financial exigency occur.

“Official constituency body” was probably intended to mean the Faculty Senate in this case, and the involvement is in the decision of whether to RECOMMEND to the BOT and NOT in the DECISION of the BOT. Reduction in force is a mandatory subject of bargaining and state law requires the Board to bargain this with the recognized bargaining representative. For tenured and tenure-track faculty, the Faculty Association is the exclusive bargaining representative. The Collective Bargaining Agreement is decided by the Board of Trustees and the Faculty Association, together, and supersedes Board Policy. Whether or not constituency involvement has ever been relevant to Administrative decisions, it is the terms of our contract that matter.

“Fact” 5:  In the event that a financial exigency is declared, the BOT would still be required to bargain with the Faculty Association over any proposed reductions in force of tenure track or tenured Faculty.

The Board’s proposal is to limit the role of the Faculty Association to mid-term and impact bargaining after a proposed implementation of layoffs, but we do not agree to this limitation. There must be accountability for the decisions to declare financial exigency and the determinations of how layoffs will be implemented. We demand that rules and criteria regarding these important aspects of reduction in force and financial exigency be bargained now as part of a just and comprehensive contract settlement.

United We Bargain! Divided We Beg!

In solidarity,
Randy Hughes

Strike Authorization Vote Results

The strike authorization vote by Faculty Association members has been completed. Eighty-eight percent (88%) of the voting members of the Faculty Association participated in the balloting. Of those voting, ninety-two percent (92%) voted yes to authorize the Departmental Representative Council (DRC) of the SIUC Faculty Association to initiate a strike.

It is my hope that the results of this vote will stimulate productive negotiations and that the SIUC Administration will address the issues at stake in a spirit of mutual give and take instead of unilateral imposition. Our goal, and the best outcome for our university, will be a collective bargaining agreement that is ratified because it meets the interests of both the faculty and the Board of Trustees.

In solidarity,

Randy Hughes